E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency--and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman's group obtained the documents--both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source--and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to reopen the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2--the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible, yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members who were asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed...raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on the EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis the EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure the EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, President Barack Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers--you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

[Lerianis3]

Well, I'm not surprised about this. The fact is that man-made global warming does NOT explain a lot of what is going on out there today in the slightest.
Things like this are going to become more and more common as the global warming 'true believers' (I would liken them to Christians in the Crusades) keep on trying to stomp down on anyone who DARES to buck their belief in global warming, even if they are doing it with facts.

Yes, the world IS heating up (A very little) but that has only one true source: the Sun, and there isn't ANYTHING we can do about that but get used to it and compensate for it.

[adamphotographicdotcom]

As long as lerianis declares it fact, I guess. Maybe you should consider what the national academy of sciences has to say:

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

They tend to be better judges than Fox news anchors or even the occasional dissonant scientific opinion (we put aside virtually every scientific opinion for the last 8 years).

[zarchon1]

You liken the global warming true believers to the Christians in the Crusades? You mean the Christians who were pushing back against the Muslim horde which had moved from Jerusalem all the way into France? I would liken the Global warming truthers to be be more like the invading Muslim horde forcing their views on Europe and the Crusades as a way of fighting back that oppression.

[i_am_still_wade]

Facts are a climate change advocate's worst nightmare.

Why is it everyone who is pro-fact, anti-myth when it comes to climate labeled as a Fox news watcher? Oh that is right, because they have no other recourse. Can't debate with truth, so try to make the messenger evil. Why won't Al Gore debate with a skeptic? Because he knows the skeptic is informed, the worst thing for the climate change crowd.

Get informed. If you have an open mind and time, climate change is easily disproven. Start with someone who crunches the raw numbers: www.climateaudit.org. Next weed out everyone with an agenda, such as the Heartland Institute, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, CNN, Fox News, the UN IPCC, and so forth. Once you take those steps, the truth will be obvious. Global warming is a myth, human caused climate change is a myth. Natural climate change is a fact of life.

[pentest]

Don't forget to discount those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Funny how that wasn't mentioned.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ pentest:"Don't forget to discount those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo"

You mean the status quo of the loony left crazies who dominate the corrupt Chicago political machine that dominate the Obummer regime?

[mistergray]

It turns out the real inconvenient truth is lack of a real consensus among real scientists as to what is causing global warming.

[Michichael]

I love how "scientists" are trying to propose sweeping hypothesis of global change based on less than a percent of a percent of the overall climate data of the planet. This rock's been here over 4,000,000,000 years. We're basing "sweeping global climate change due to humans" on less than 10,000 years of data.

Protip - the earth's climate is cyclical, and our axis, like every other planet, isn't perfect - it tilts and wobbles as time goes on. This wobble currently making the northern hemisphere get a larger amount of sunlight than the southern. Oh noes! Global warming!

Fun Trivia: What causes over 96% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: Nature or man? (Hint, over 70% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from volcanic activity)

[robzub]

What the heck is wrong with CNET? As noted, the critical report comes from an economist, not a scientist. The EPA should be making its decisions primarily on science, which it did in this case.

Then the economist makes embarrassingly wrong statements about global warming, showing he's completely clueless and out to lunch. Why the heck did CNET uncritically report his lunatic claims?

Mr. McCullagh should be fired immediately for publishing such garbage.

[swenk22]

Yes, fire the messenger! We'll have no dissension from the authority!!

[lightningrob]

Calling for a reporter to be fired is SO typical of the eco-fascists who want to silence any dissent on global warming.
Mean global temperatures did peak in 1998, I've seen it on several government websites (NOAA and such) that track it.

[tech_crazy]

Yes, science and not politics. This guy has the required basics - a BS in physics and a PhD (albeit in economics but still from MIT) but nevertheless involved in environmental policies since 1964.

I never believed in the global warming theory. Heck, if the output from the sun remains constant, earth's temperature would remain constant. If the greenhouse gases trap heat and prevent surface radiation, they would do the same to the incoming heat. Net result - zero.

There is something very fishy going on here at the EPA - this report was conveniently discarded, official statements to the contrary and the regulation (which normally takes years) passed in a matter of weeks. If that's not enough, the house bill passed so quickly. Definitely a case of BIG "special interests"!

Kudos to McGullagh and CNET for this article and for bringing this to the attention of many (including myself) that could have otherwise not known about this. This has also re-affirmed my recently flagging confidence in CNET.

If anyone should be fired, it should be you.

[pentest]

Someone with a PHD in economics has no qualifications to weigh into a scientific matter.

This guy is a clown with an agenda, or a money stream from someone who benefits from maintaining the status quo.

Are we going to allow a biologist to have any credibility in economic decisions?

Well, only if you shortsighted neo-con nut bags agree with the position apparently.

This guy is not qualified! End of story.

[Lerianis3]

Actually, pentest, as long as this person DID THEIR RESEARCH CORRECTLY.... they can weigh in on a scientific matter. You are forgetting that many of our scientists at the turn of LAST century, were not formally trained as scientists. You also cannot dispute BLUNT NUMBERS, which totally disprove global warming if you look at them. The only thing that the temperatures show lately is that our climate is a CHAOTIC SYSTEM, where quite substantial ups and downs are par for the course.

It's time to realize that just because someone has 'no formal training' does NOT mean that we should automatically discount what they are saying. We've done that with many people over the years, only for them to be proven RIGHT when the cards were all laid face up.

lightningrob gets it right: the eco-fascists want to silence ANY dissent on global warming (at least MAN-MADE global warming) because they wish to fear and guilt people into thinking that "We are destroying the planet!" without any real evidence of that.

[ggoodknight]

Anyone with a BS in Physics from the California Institute of Technology (#1 in the country for the percentage of alumni with Ph.D.'s) is well trained in the most basic of sciences and capable of understanding the research.

[Kwasiowusu]

:"Mr. McCullagh should be fired immediately for publishing such garbage"

Huh?
Is this Comrade Obummer's first amendendment, truth suppresing, terrorist KGB agents at work here with their intimidatory tactics?
Hey, Obummebr, this is not Zimbabwe ..yet. You can't jail, torture and imprison, and fire journalists just because they won't tow your anti-American, economy ruining, super corrupt, sleazy regime.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ pentest : "Someone with a PHD in economics has no qualifications to weigh into a scientific matter"

Heck YES he does and he can.
99% of the moronic, liberal idiots in Hollywood and the Mainstream Media, who continue to peddle this so-called "global warming" nonsense, wouldn't even tell you what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is, let alone come even close to having a PHD in science. yet the air-heads in Hollywood/media continue to pass themselves off as authorities in this mythical "global warming" and push that brain dead agenda with all their might. Why the heck can't an economics PHD write a report that rightfully expresses great scepticism of "global warming"?

[spatev]

terrorist KGB? im not even sure what that means. And all these "blunt numbers" you speak of: i would love to see them. I would also like everyone on here to take a look at the "blunt numbers" about the sun. From the research i have helped with up here in massachusetts and the research i have read about there is less fact behind the sun being the culprit than humans. i am by no means saying the people-causing-doomsday theory is right, i'm just saying, do some research before you throw numbers and alternatives around. All i know is were cutting down lots of trees and spitting out lots of co2 and other gasses, whether its doing anything now or not doesnt matter, its gonna come back and bite us in the ass one day.

[spatev]

and what the hell does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle have to do with global climate change? anyway, whether or not those liberal idiots out in California are peddling this theory is irrelevant, noone would accept a thesis written by them on the subject. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone can make a truly informed and backed statement. I'm not saying i can, and i sincerely doubt anyone here can either. And i really wish we would stop talking about obama, i sincerey doubt he walked down to the EPA and said "hey, lets fire this jerk" in fact, i'm pretty sure noone said that at all... except this guy up here.

[AeroJonesy]

Glad to see you pick up this story, Mr. McCullagh. It's a big one that has gone relatively unnoticed. Science should not be politicized, and scientific views should not be surpressed in order to further the agenda of a political administration.

[lightningrob]

Ditto. It's nice to see minority viewpoints aired occasionally, especially when they're shut down by the MSM.

[gertruded]

The CEI pushing this story if funded by EXXonMobil. Enough said.

[pentest]

Yeah, "scientific" views from an economist!

[Kwasiowusu]

@ by pentest :"Yeah, "scientific" views from an economist! "

That economist just happpens to have a physics degree from CalTech. That makes him a scientist anyway you want to twist it. How many science degrees do YOU have?

[swenk22]

If suppression had happened under bush admin it would be front page major news.... Look and see if it goes anywhere now... quite Orwellian!

[gertruded]

Again, the CEI is funded by EXXonmobil. They have been funding anti global warming stories for some time now.

[capn_insano]

CEI, you mean these guys?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

[jay-1234]

Bravo on the "fair and balanced" reporting of this article. It's wonderful that you paint the controversy so well without even remarking on the scientific merits of the report that was supposedly repressed.

<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a>

[Mergatroid Mania]

Uh, CNET never lets any links work in the comments.

Of course, anyone with a brain can copy and paste them into their browser.

And, again of course, anyone with a brain would leave out the text in front of the http:// because that text is what prevented the first link from working properly (using copy and paste).

[jay-1234]

Hmmm. Let's see if cnet comments will let this come through as a link, since the above didn't work, nor can I edit it.

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/[/url]

If not, here's the URL all by itself:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

[flickrz]

"Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature."
OK. So, satellite imagery and deep drilling studies conducted by NASA and other scientists is wrong about greenlands' ice.

[Mergatroid Mania]

The point of contention is not whether of not Greenland is shedding ice, but if the cause of that ice shedding is global warming caused by man, or global warming by natural causes.

[sdipaola]

this is an awful story - full of false reporting: switching science and expert to exploit the authors bias point

the report author was an economist not a scientist, the EPA uses science,
would you write a headline about SUPPRESSION if they didn't listen to a toy maker's report too!

[2klbofun]

Yep, and the Enviro Savior Al Gore has a phd in climatology?

[Mergatroid Mania]

In these days of internet information and self education, anyone who is educated can research any topic they care to, and their opinion is AT LEAST as legitimate as Al Gore's opinion is.

This guy has a BS in Physics, which would make him a scientist. He has been working with the EPA for 38 years. How long did Al gore work for the EPA? How long have YOU worked for the EPA?

I believe this guys opinion is more legitimate than yours is. Personally, I don't think any decision can be made on Global warming without looking at the trends for at least another century. With any less data, you really cannot say with authority what the temperature trend is on this planet. Frankly, since there have been thousands of centuries, it's pretty odd that any scientist should state he knows that the temperature trend should be right now.

[summershoe]

If you read the report it does appear that a lot of his core arguments are baseless but I'm not sure that's the point. The EPAs handling of this, regardless of whether or not Carlin is a scientist, is definitely not promoting transparency and they should be called out on it. Right or wrong there's no concern about publishing his report to be critiqued is there? After skimming his report and checking it against the data I'm no less convinced that global warming is real. And I don't know about anyone else but I voted for Obama precisely because of his commitment to scientific process and transparency, not because he holds my ideals. I do hope this story continues to get some attention.

[lixpaulian]

Based on your argument for transparency, that would translate that anybody at EPA, including the cleaning personal should be allowed to air opinions which should be "transparently" handled. This guy is primarily an economist, and if he thinks that global temperatures sunk, then how can he explain the melting of the polar ice so that we can now navigate from the norh Atlantic Ocean to the North Pacific ocean?

[Lerianis3]

lixpaulian, just because the polar ice is melting does NOT mean that we are having 'global warming'. The fact is that the polar ice caps might be an Impermanent thing, meaning that they are NOT always around. Actually, that has already been proven with carbon dating of things in the middle and lowest ice they can drill to, showing that the oldest ice is only about 100K years old.

[vabiro]

Lerianis3,

I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand: There is little dispute that the earth has been warmer - and colder for that mater. The fact that it was warmer *100,000* years ago is irrelevant.

The issue that is causing so much concern is the RATE at which the temperature is changing. At no time in history has the earth warmed as quickly as it is now.

Regarding the report, I agree that there is bad science and psudo-science on both sides of this issue. However, there is a lot more money attached to the anti-warming agenda that the pro. Additionally, the scientific community has been looking at the science on both sides of the issue for the past decade, and the consensus seems sufficient for the policy discussions and decissions that are required right now.

I am really disappointed that the EPA chose such a myopic approach to this report. Regardless of the validity of the data and conclusions, by suppressing the report, as they did, they have created an aura of conspiracy that will dog the policy forever.

How could they not see that coming. The EPA management should be called on the carpet for their political tone deafness.

[rmva]

He's an economist! That explains everything.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ rmva :"He's an economist! That explains everything"

It explains why he is right, and you(with no proven credentials), are wrong.
We have had thousands of science PHD's expressing, exactly the same scepticism he's expressing about "global warming"

[capn_insano]

Care to link these 'thousands of Scientists'? And please don't quote petitionproject, that's a load of bunk.

[alenas]

Why would anyone report this story about some "out of mind" pretend to be a scientist.
You do not need to be a scientist to feel the big anomalies compared to 20 years ago (like seasons going out of sync, summers getting hotter, glaciers melting around the world - i have seen that myself, etc).
Seems like there are so many ignorant people that would still want to continue those destructive actions of humanity...

[hakpenguin]

Summers getting hotter?

This, like so many other main-stream comments, shows a lack of current data events. I live near Chicago ... experiencing the coolest June on record! That means back into the 1800s. So what would a scientist say to that data? If summers are truly getting hotter, the outliers of data would not be that extreme - most would be near norm with a statistically significant number greater than norm. Show me that data.

[Lerianis3]

hakpenguin, you got it exactly right. I went to the local library and looked at the chart of temperatures in our area since 1950..... the temperatures were pretty close to the same, with some SMALL fluctuations in some years with one year being hotter or cooler than another.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the world is heating up, and the fact is that the ONLY thing that can heat the world up is..... THE SUN!

[SemperLibertas]

We certainly are having a hot summer in Houston. As a matter of fact, we are having some record-setting hot temperatures. Just last week we set several records for high temperature. But guess when most of those records were set: in the hotter-than-average summer of 1934, or in the hotter-than-average summer of 1980. If the summers are getting progressively hotter, shouldn't it take longer than 75 years or even 29 years for temperature records to stand? And what about, as mentioned above, areas that are having cooler than average temperatures right now?

Also, you do realize that glaciers used to cover parts of the United States -- that's how the Great Lakes were formed, for example -- and melted away long before we were emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling and always has.

[moviegeek65]

The earth's mean temperature goes in cycles which is most likely caused by solar output, how do you explain the ice ages occuring every 125,000 years?
I guess the Democrats like fiction(read Al Gore) rather than facts, good work Cnet for reporting this.

[Mergatroid Mania]

If another ice age was beginning right now, these same people would be on the nightly news ranting and raving that man made carbon emissions were reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the planet and causing the planet to cool down into another ice age.

[G|Net]

Hmm, I think it's ironic to see generic readers of CNet questioning this guy's credentials...do they have better ones? The guy has a physics degree from CalTech and you're saying he's "pretending" to be a scientist? What are your credentials? And don't tell me your credentials are "I don't need to be a scientist, because I feel the summers getting hotter...." Yeah, great cred there. Way to see the big picture of the Earth and it's cyclical patterns since before the dawn of man.

The main question I have for the folks discrediting Carlin's report, is this: why would you turn your back and put your hands over your ears if more facts keep rolling in? Why make up your mind so soon? The truth is, a true scientist is less satisfied with conclusions and more interested in new data all the time. It's about a continuous quest for knowledge, and new data and peer review are basics tenet of this. Not shutting off your mind and saying "nope, don't believe it....I've already made my decision".

It sounds to me like this Carlin guy was reminding the EPA (which months ago was telling everyone that science was #1, and not ideology) of its core mission....seems like the new EPA is already politically charged and has forgotten what it said in January. Carlin may not have been an official "scientist" charged with accumulating data for the EPA, but perhaps his report was simply reminding them that there hasn't been enough science on this, and too much effort has gone into shoehorning a pre-judged ideology into public policy on a ridiculously timed fast-track with nowhere near the time for public commentary usually reserved for these endeavors.

Thanks Declan for posting this.

[rmva]

Eureka! It was cooler here last night than it was the night before. Because temperatiures normally rise during the Summer, this proves conclusively that global warming has come to an end.

[gerrrg]

After reading the emails (and NOT THE COMMENTARY), this is how I interpret the context:

1. An individual (Al McGartland) submitted his own report, LATE in the process.
2. He expected the process to STOP for HIM, suggesting that without inclusion of HIS paper, the EPA would not be pursuing good science.
3. He admitted that his paper had NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED; as consolation, he notes that two-thirds of his references were to peer-reviewed papers.
4. If his own paper was not peer reviewed but was using peer-reviewed papers, he is suggesting that his insight is stronger than that of those separate papers he cited in his own.

Ah, the ego knows no bounds.

[Electro_Fox]

"After reading the emails (and NOT THE COMMENTARY), this is how I interpret the context"

Yeah, obviously moron... Maybe instead of going off half-cocked, you should pay attention to the facts... Like the person who wrote the report is named: ALAN CARLIN! How much Kool-Aid have you consumed today? People like you make people like you look bad...

[capn_insano]

Facts? What facts, I'd direct you to a link posted above;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

Calling someone out on getting the guy's name wrong is somewhat pedantic.

[odubtaig]

This dossbag's repeating lies that have been debunked a thousand times over. I wish media outlets would stop giving these wastes of space the oxygen of publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if the note attached to the rejection described it as a 'bollocks report'.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

Nuff said.

[Mike_Gl]

The lead researcher on a California Air Resources Board
scientific study got caught lying about having a PhD. When things
got hot, he purchased a fake PhD diploma off a cheesy Internet website,
a Thornhill University in Israel.

This report was used to justify sweeping, costly new diesel emission
rules proposed by the CARB staff.

It cannot be underestimated how powerful the ARB is. These reports justify
California's air laws. AB 32 is our own very expensive law. Though it
will have nearly no effect on global C02 itself, we are told how it
will because the USA and the world will follow our lead. The new USA air
laws are based on CA's laws.

Look, I'm no global warming denier. I don't even doubt the accuracy of
Hien's report. But this is ridiculous. They fired (moved?) him and kept
his report!

Chris Reed at SDUT has been tracking this. He has follow-ups too.
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/033291.html#more

[georgiarat]

This suppression of this report just follows the pattern of this out of control administration and Congress aided my the press. We have had two Major bills (Stimulus and Climate) neither of which anyone read before they were passed and both were not complete before the vote. However, these people don't care about laws because they have no integrity. Wake up People!!

[odubtaig]

I'm awake enough to see you can't eat, your mouth's so full of ****.

[Lerianis3]

Yep, unfortunately, I have to agree with you, georgiarat. I like most of what Obama and the Democrats are doing, I DON'T like that they are passing these laws so damned quickly with little to no oversight and actually reading the bills.

Personally, even though I am an EXTREME liberal (almost an anarchist if I was honest about it), I don't think that global warming is real. I've read too many studies and seen the data in my local area and state where it shows that global warming is the biggest load of bunk in history.

[capn_insano]

I don't agree with that bill nor necessarily how this report was treated. I'm quite certain Global Warming is a real issue.

'I've read too many studies and seen the data in my local area and state where it shows that global warming is the biggest load of bunk in history.'

Funny, most of the authors of reports denying this that I've looked into have questionable ties. I also consider it a tad ludicrous that you would base your idea solely on data from your particular locality.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Marxism is America is "green", not red.

[mutualin4mation]

They are called watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside.

[mbenedict]

Good article Declan.